2020 (11) TMI 617 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - validity of e-way bill expired at time of detention - option for extension of period of e-way bill - Validity of notices issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act -- HELD THAT - The classification in the table under R.138(10) is essentially between over dimensional cargo and other cargo . In both the categories of cases, the cargo can be transported either by road or through multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship. The number of days which would count towards the validity period of the e-way bill, for cargo other than over dimensional cargo, would vary depending upon whether the distance traversed is upto 100 km or more. While one day validity is given for distance traversed upto 100 km, an additional day is granted for every 100 kms or part thereof traversed thereafter. Similarly, in the case of over dimensional cargo, one day validity is granted for up to 20 km traversed, and an additional day for every 20 km or part thereof traversed thereafter. The mere fact that the respondent had detained the goods did not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner from extending the validity period of the e-way bill, and producing a copy of the extended e-way bill before the authority for the purposes of seeking a clearance of the goods. The detention of the goods and the vehicle in the instant case cannot be said to be unjustified - petitioner are permitted to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notices - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Ext.P4 series of notices under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act regarding expired e-way bill validity during transportation.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the notices issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, which highlighted the expiry of the e-way bill validity during transportation. The petitioner argued that the e-way bill validity could be extended within eight hours of expiry as per the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(10). The petitioner claimed that there was no valid reason for detaining the goods, as he had time to extend the e-way bill validity till 8 am on a specific date, whereas the detention occurred earlier. However, the court found it challenging to accept the petitioner's contentions. The court differentiated between 'over dimensional cargo' and 'other cargo' in the classification under Rule 138(10). The validity period of the e-way bill varied based on the type of cargo and the distance traveled. The court emphasized that interpreting the provision as suggested by the petitioner would distort its clear language.

The court also addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(10. Although the e-way bill validity could have been extended within eight hours of expiry, the petitioner failed to do so. The court noted that the detention of goods did not prevent the petitioner from extending the e-way bill validity and presenting the extended e-way bill to seek clearance. Consequently, the court concluded that the detention of goods and the vehicle was justified in this case.

In response to the petitioner's request, the court allowed the petitioner to clear the goods and the vehicle upon providing a bank guarantee for the demanded amount in the notices. The respondents were directed to proceed with the final order in GST MOV 09 after hearing the petitioner. The Government Pleader was instructed to communicate the judgment's directions to enable the petitioner to obtain clearance of the goods and the vehicle under the specified conditions.